memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Galaxy class
Length of a Galaxy class starship I'd like to contest the listed length of 642.51 m. I have not seen a source anywhere that states this as the length of a Galaxy class starship. The Star Trek Encyclopedia says 641 m (so do Wikipedia and Memory Beta). :Indeed those lenght figures seem to come from DS9 TM. But I too don't remember anyone mentioning the exact size of the ship onscreen or on any computer graphic --Pseudohuman 12:58, January 30, 2010 (UTC) ::None of the published lengths are canon, so the number should be removed from the infobox, but the 642.51m figure does come from the DS9 tech manual. The text in that book was written by Rick Sternbach, and he has made a number of statements in the newsgroups saying that the size is 2108 feet (which converts to 642.5184m). In addition, the 2108-foot figure can be seen on the early TNG size comparison chart which I linked to on the Ambassador page, on Ed Whitefire's unpublished blueprints which were made with access to the early TNG art department, and a variety of other early sources. Thus the evidence is much more in favor of the 2108-foot figure coming from Andrew Probert's orthos, although there is no definite confirmation either way - Andrew Probert wasn't sure offhand when I emailed him. – NotOfTheBody 13:19, January 30, 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Looks to me like a conversion error. Sad to know these still exist in the 23rd century... Blue lights at main shuttle bay If you look out of the main shuttle bay onto the saucer's hull, just some 30 meters away, there are two... erm... "signs" with an estimated diameter of 10 meters, consisting of a number of smaller parts. Sometimes they are glowing pale blue, sometimes they are dull black. What are they? What function do they fulfill? Under which circumstances do they glow and don't? A buddy told me those are approach lights for the shuttles. This makes sense to me, but: In a movie picture the pattern are all black but two smaller parts of it, which are illuminated in white, as if they were windows (though this picture looked CGI to me). Kleinalrik 11:50, February 5, 2010 (UTC) :I've always thought they were some kind of gym or Arboretum, like the large blue lights on the side of the A were. – Fadm tyler 13:11, February 5, 2010 (UTC) ::They are indeed the arboretum, according to Rick Sternbach's blueprints. http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-the-next-generation-enterprise-sheet-1.jpg --Pseudohuman 12:16, February 6, 2010 (UTC) :::Thank you both! And thank you Pseudohuman for the blueprints-link. Literally, it is just an opaque window of a blue illuminated hall? Are there movie-pictures of the arboretum? 22:14, February 6, 2010 (UTC) ::Arboretum interior was seen in . --Pseudohuman 12:42, February 7, 2010 (UTC) :::Thank you, dude! 18:15, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Scale in comparrison with Humanoid form in Human form on the aft section of a Galaxy Class starship. (For scale)]] I was watching and noticed a scene in which Q and Amanda Rogers transport to the outer-aft section of the Enterprise. I figured it would make a good addition to the Galaxy class article to demonstrate the size of the ship in comparrison with a Human but I can't really find a decent place to put it in the article. I've included the image here, I hope someone with more experience editing Memory Alpha (It's a bit more complex than some of the Wikis I'm used to) can find a way to incorporate it into the article (if it's deemed necessary). --Plaguebeard 11:03, July 2, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not really sure it would be appropriate, as there is no way of telling if Q and Amanda were retaining their normal humanoid sizes while standing on the hull (in other words, "they might be giants"). -Angry Future Romulan 14:01, July 2, 2010 (UTC) ::They look to be scaled to human size, in that scene, considering that we know how big the ship is supposed to be. In any case i put it as the first image of the physical arrangement section. --00:30, July 3, 2010 (UTC) No Proof For Ground Construction There is no proof for this statement: "Major component construction of Galaxy-class ships was carried out both in orbit and at ground based facilities." The galaxy shown in that image may be for officer training, salvage, or other purposes. It was never stated as being in construction Heaney 19:39, October 27, 2010 (UTC) :I'm pretty sure it was stated somewhere that the Enterprise was constructed there. Anybody care to back me up with a specific reference? -Angry Future Romulan 19:42, October 27, 2010 (UTC) ]] ::Utopia Planitia's surface facilites were shown in , as shown in this photo. --31dot 00:50, October 28, 2010 (UTC) The enterprise was constructed in Orbit of mars was it not? - Heaney 15:34, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::This article is not about the Enterprise, it is about the Galaxy class in general, at least some of which was built on the surface of Mars. For all we know construction starts on the surface and moves into orbit. The statement is correct.--31dot 16:55, October 31, 2010 (UTC) Read my original post! I said. The galaxy shown in that image: (File:Utopia_Planitia.jpg) may be for officer training, salvage, or other purposes. It was never stated as being a ship in construction - Heaney 17:03, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::That is speculation, and aside from that unlikely. Utopia Planitia is where Starfleet has a shipyard. That is a picture of Utopia Planitia. Absent evidence(such as a specific statement) of your claim, we assume that what we see is correct.--31dot 17:11, October 31, 2010 (UTC) File:UtopiaPlanitiaFleetYards.jpg shows the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards, in orbit. Not on the ground. It would be stupid to build a ship on the surface. - Heaney 17:38, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::Whether it is "stupid" or not is irrelevant- it is apparently not stupid to them. We don't have to know the reason it makes sense to do so in order to have it in the article. The point it is it is speculation to say otherwise without evidence from canon.--31dot 17:51, October 31, 2010 (UTC) That's MY point!! It's speculation to say that it is a "Galaxy class ship under construction at Utopia Planitia" without evidence from canon! --Heaney 17:52, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::No, it is not. We assume that what we see it what it appears to be unless told otherwise- which is a ship under construction. Just as a picture of Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton unless we are told otherwise.--31dot 17:56, October 31, 2010 (UTC) :::Utopia Planitia is a ship construction yard. This was a picture of Utopia Planitia. Ergo, a starship under construction. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:41, November 1, 2010 (UTC) Utopia Planitia is an ORBITAL ship construction yard. This was a picture of the ground. Ergo, possibly a starship under construction but NOT necessarily. Heaney 11:10, November 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::There is no proof that ships are only constructed in orbit, so we have no reason to assume that a ship in pieces isn't under construction, therefore the ship on the ground is under construction. - 16:37, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :::Utopia Planitia is never called an "orbital ship construction yard" or an "orbital" anything. We know it has orbital construction facilities because we have seen them, but nothing has ever been stated to indicate it is exclusively orbital. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:59, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::In the quantum reality where this image is from, Cardassians were spying on Federation sites involved with new starship development. Also an uncited note (next gen companion? tngtm? encyclopedia?) in our Unnamed Galaxy class starships states: "Although barely visible, Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda's original intentions was for this to be a Galaxy-class ship under construction. Later however, they realized it wouldn't be very logical to be built on the surface, as it would require more energy to take the parts into orbit than necessary. One response to this they suggested is that it was for officer training." Though it's propably pretty easy to counter Mars's gravity with a simple tractor beam... but still, i'm not sure it is that clear of an issue... --Pseudohuman 16:54, November 2, 2010 (UTC) ::That would be a valid background note, but since the original intention was for it to be what we see, a ship under construction- and nothing contradicts that in canon, the line in dispute is still fine.--31dot 16:57, November 2, 2010 (UTC) Galaxy Class Ablative Hull Armor I would like to contest the incorrect and repeated re-editing of the Galaxy Class page to not have Ablative hull armor, as it is clearly stated on page 23 of the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual in the form of the paragraph: "The outermost hull layer is composed of a 1.6 cm sheet of AGP ablative ceramic fabric chemically bonded onto a substrate of 0.15 cm tritanium foil. This material is formed into segments of approximately 3.7 m2 and is attached to the radiation attenuation layer by a series of duranium fasteners, which allows individual segments to be replaced as necessary." I'd say that's pretty conclusive, and the TM is a supported source of information. So Sulfur, stop incorrectly editing the Galaxy class' info page, as well as the ablative armor page. :The TM isn't canon. - 01:37, November 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Further aside, I am pretty certain in DS9 that Ablative armor was something rather new, and it was a total surprise to Starfleet Operations that it was on the hull of the . Mostly though, as Archduk3 has said, the Technical Manual is not canon (and in a further point, has been contradicted several times anyway) --Terran Officer 01:52, November 27, 2010 (UTC) First of all, it was fairly clear they knew what ablative armor was, and didn't actually show surprise; they showed annoyance. Furthermore, there has been no instance in canon which contradicts this statement by the TNG tech manual. :::Insofar as I understand it, the TM is stated to be a source that's accepted by MA, albeit with the caveat that it should only be used for background information. :::Further there is no canonical contradiction to the TNG TM on this point. The fact that there was surprise over the Defiant class specifically having ablative armor in no way proves, or even necessarily suggests, that it was a new form of armor that had never been used before, and in no way proves that the Galaxy class, or any other class, lacks this form of armor. Catamount1412 02:22, November 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::It should only be used for BG info. It doesn't mean that it is canon. The TM is non-canon. BG only. It may or may not have been obviously contradicted, that's a point of contention (obviously). Regardless, it does not belong in the main section of the article. ::::Finally, please sign your comments. -- sulfur 02:14, November 27, 2010 (UTC) :::It's entirely possible that there is something in canon explicitly contradicting the TM on this point, but if anyone wants to claim that there is, then the burden of proof is on them to show such an instance in order to show that the TM is wrong. The point about it belonging in BG info is, of course, correct. -- Catamount1412 02:23, November 27, 2010 (UTC) USS Trinculo In the Haynes Enterprise Owners' Workshop Manual (2010) there's a list of Galaxy-class ships which does include the USS Trinculo NCC-71867. I know that reference manuals are non-canon, but it would seem that the book was reviewed by the Okudas, so they possibly agree with this or even provided the information themselves. I don't think this affects the article but it's interesting to see that this ship is viewed as somewhat official, even though we have no proof of any on-screen appearance. --ANdRu 17:35, January 20, 2011 (UTC) :The ship has it's own real-world view article, , so feel free to add this new mentioning of it there. --Pseudohuman 05:45, January 21, 2011 (UTC) ::Oh sorry, there is a Trinculo page indeed, somehow I missed it. Thanks! --ANdRu 11:03, January 21, 2011 (UTC)